Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

St. Mary's Home of Erie v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1996Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSilvestri, Senior Judge

St. Mary’s Home of Erie (Employer) filed two separate petitions, one to terminate benefits and the other to review the parties’ agreements for compensation1, and Dorothy Stadtmiller (Claimant) filed a petition to review medical treatment. The decision and order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), which was affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), denied both petitions of Employer and granted the petition of Claimant along with an award of costs. I concur insofar as the majority reverses the award costs as set forth in the bill of costs; however, I disagree with the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Fehr v. YMCA, PottsvilleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Birmingham Fire Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. School District v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Cedar Farms, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API